Matson Navigation Co. v. Hansen, 10186.

• Decision Date: 12 December 1942
• Docket Number: No. 10186.,10186.
• Citation: 132 F.2d 487
• Parties: MATSON NAVIGATION CO. v. HANSEN.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit

132 F.2d 487 (1942)

MATSON NAVIGATION CO. v. HANSEN.

No. 10186.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

December 12, 1942.

Herman Phleger, Maurice E. Harrison, Brobeck, Phleger & Harrison, and Robert E. Burns, all of San Francisco, Cal., for appellant.

Andersen & Resner, of San Francisco, Cal., for appellee.

Before WILBUR, DENMAN, and HEALY, Circuit Judges.

DENMAN, Circuit Judge.

This is an appeal from a judgment of the district court, sitting without jury, awarding to appellee Hansen, an able bodied seaman, damages against appellant for injury to appellee's hand, held to be caused by the acts of appellant in requiring him to work in an unsafe place on appellant's steamer, the Mauna Lei.

The appellant does not question the amount of damages appellee suffered, but claims there is not sufficient evidence to support the court's findings.

All but one of the witnesses to the accident and conditions prevailing, including the chief mate under whose orders Hansen was working at the time of the injury, testified before the district court. The sufficiency of the findings is to be considered here with reference to the provision of Rule 52 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c.¹

The vessel had encountered heavy weather shortly after leaving San Francisco on its voyage to Honolulu, which disarranged a deckload of steel "I" beams. A part of the district court's findings concerning the safety of appellee's place of work, is as follows:

"4. * * * said steel deck load shifted, fell over, and became uneven, with the result that it was very difficult and unsafe to walk on and over the said steel deck load. That said defendant did not provide a safe walk-way over said deck load;

"5. That shortly prior to the injuries sustained by plaintiff he was working on the starboard side of the forward masthouse paying out a guyline; that in said vicinity there was a considerable amount of oil on the deck and that oil was on said deck load; that in carrying out his duties at said time and place, plaintiff was ordered by his superior to go to the starboard rigging and adjust a block; that he adjusted said block; that in returning to his place of duty, and while walking over said cargo of steel, and due to the negligent and careless manner in which steel was maintained aboard said vessel by said defendant, and the said oil on said beams and around the vicinity in which plaintiff was working, plaintiff, without any fault, carelessness or negligence on his part, slipped and fell and in so falling his hand became fouled in a moving line and was carried into a block, with the resulting injuries, as aforesaid."

The complaint invokes the provisions of the Jones Act, 46 U.S.C.A. § 688, and the question is whether the place in which appellee was required to work was reasonably...